PJ claims to have evidence that has thus far eluded mankind; something that the greatest scholars, scientists, and theologians in human history have sought after: Proof that god exists! And yet he refuses to enlighten the world. He refuses to save our souls by revealing this wonderful gift to us. He seems to enjoy fucking with us by playing games and riddles in spite of the fact that we crave this knowledge. PJ seems a lot like the god of the Old Testament.

"Which is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended, or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?"- David Hume

(25-03-2013 09:04 AM)Heathen Wrote: PJ claims to have evidence that has thus far eluded mankind; something that the greatest scholars, scientists, and theologians in human history have sought after: Proof that god exists! And yet he refuses to enlighten the world. He refuses to save our souls by revealing this wonderful gift to us. He seems to enjoy fucking with us by playing games and riddles in spite of the fact that we crave this knowledge. PJ seems a lot like the god of the Old Testament.

Yeah, and I'm not worshiping him either.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair

This is where you're wrong and you know it. You've set up a false comparison here.

1. You want proof over the internet? Everyone reading this knows that there is no proof anyone on the internet can give you that will meet any kind of skeptical requirements as proof.
2. Nobody on this forum is omnipotent. While all of us here are unable to give you proof, we all must acknowledge that if your god is real, then he's omnipotent and fully capable of revealing himself, perfectly, to every person on the planet in any way he chooses.

So you've created a false situation here that we cannot meet and presume to say that your "invisible Deity" is subjected to the same rules that we are and is likewise unable to prove his existence.

Really?

Your god is that weak?

I daresay, why worship a god who lacks the power to even manifest himself? How can you assume that a god who cannot manifest himself is somehow capable of creating an entire universe?

Because, if you assume that he CAN manifest himself, omnipotently, perfectly, then this whole thread is a waste of all of our time and you know it.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein

(25-03-2013 07:10 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote: You're the one who is lying and mispresenting what I've written.

Actually, I have neither lied, nor misrepresented anything (citations, please). Besides that, you do realize that you just confirmed what I said, that you never defined the term "proof", but merely offered us to use someone else's "tools", right?

Quote:PJ claims to have evidence that has thus far eluded mankind; something that the greatest scholars, scientists, and theologians in human history have sought after: Proof that god exists! And yet he refuses to enlighten the world. He refuses to save our souls by revealing this wonderful gift to us. He seems to enjoy fucking with us by playing games and riddles in spite of the fact that we crave this knowledge. PJ seems a lot like the god of the Old Testament.

Now THERE'S a straw man if I've ever heard one. MILLIONS of people have claimed to have had this same proof for millennia. Testable, verifiable proof. Now, there's a lot we can do via the scientific hypothesis method. But when I ask Atheists to have me and God join in this process by prayer, they usually tell me to STFU. YOU refuse to participate in your own enlightenment. And perhaps you can name ANY religion other than Christianity that tells people anything different. They ALL say enlightenment is in your hands--but then again, so is learning, wisdom, relational success, employment success, etc. Do you tell your boss, "I will not work for a promotion, just send it to me and STFU if you don't? Do you tell your spouse, I refuse to talk to you, but if you visit me and talk to me, maybe I'll respond to you?"

Quote:This is where you're wrong and you know it. You've set up a false comparison here.

1. You want proof over the internet? Everyone reading this knows that there is no proof anyone on the internet can give you that will meet any kind of skeptical requirements as proof.
2. Nobody on this forum is omnipotent. While all of us here are unable to give you proof, we all must acknowledge that if your god is real, then he's omnipotent and fully capable of revealing himself, perfectly, to every person on the planet in any way he chooses.

So you've created a false situation here that we cannot meet and presume to say that your "invisible Deity" is subjected to the same rules that we are and is likewise unable to prove his existence.

Really?

Your god is that weak?

I daresay, why worship a god who lacks the power to even manifest himself? How can you assume that a god who cannot manifest himself is somehow capable of creating an entire universe?

Because, if you assume that he CAN manifest himself, omnipotently, perfectly, then this whole thread is a waste of all of our time and you know it.

I would ABSOLUTELY agree with you except for a Christian concept of will. If you're a Calvinist like KC, than God's omnipotence includes NOT revealing Himself in a saving way to certain people. If you're a free will person like me, then your free will can damage any variety of relationships and revelation of love from spousal to parental to business to... God. Have you never been in this situation? "Go talk to Bill!" "Screw Bill, I KNOW if I make the first move (second move, third, fourth) he'll refuse me." Atheists "meet the Bill" in this case. God knows exactly who will trust Him, and reveals Himself to those persons.

Quote:Actually, I have neither lied, nor misrepresented anything (citations, please). Besides that, you do realize that you just confirmed what I said, that you never defined the term "proof", but merely offered us to use someone else's "tools", right?

Agreed, I hesitated to give my parameters for proof of evidence and preferred to use your own rigorous and skeptical tools, after first ensuring the playing field was level by using your terms. Aseptic has AGAIN admitted such proof for a living person today cannot come over the Internet, using skeptical, verifiable, testable, etc. rules for evidence--but you still wish to impose those on God--a set of skeptical, empirical assumptions which create an inherent confirmatory bias against anything other-worldly. Is that right?